Pages

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Are you a ‘Secularist’?

There is a mail floating around which includes a presentation called ‘Pseudosecularism’ with the following questions. Usually I avoid countering such propaganda but when sometimes you see a recurring theme in most people’s arguments it becomes necessary to address it. This presentation has the following questions which one is supposed to answer for oneself. I am going to answer them here.

Are you a Secularist?

I am not sure what that means. But if it means I believe in the principles of secularism and believe that our country, India, should adhere to the secular principles, yes, I am a secularist. But it does not mean I am going to demonize other’s religion while praising my own, or denounce my religion while praising others. I believe that state should be separated from religion – irrespective of whose religion it is.

There are nearly 52 Muslim countries. Show one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.

I don’t know if other Muslim countries provide Haj subsidy, but as a ‘secularist’ I oppose India giving Haj subsidy. As a secularist, I do not agree to state providing Haj subsidy. But it is also true that no country in the world gives government funds for construction and renovation of private Hindu temples. Karnataka Government in India has donated crores of money to Hindu temples.

As a secularist, I oppose Haj subsidies, and also oppose state sponsorship of Hindu Temples. As a secularist, I also oppose state sponsored cow veneration, state sponsored celebration of Hindu and Muslim festivals, state sponsored Hindu ceremonies for government offices, etc.

So, India happens to be a ‘secular’ country in theory which doesn’t necessarily practice secularism, and does all kinds of funny things to promote various religions, including Haj subsidies, and donations to temples. So, to highlight only Haj subsidies does not do justice to the argument that India somehow treats Indian Muslims preferentially, because it treats Indian Hindus even more preferentially.

Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?

Indian Muslims are not accorded any special rights compared to Indian Hindus. Having a separate personal law for Indian Muslims is not giving ‘special rights’ but ‘inferior rights’. An Indian Muslim woman is treated far more inferiorly than an Indian Hindu woman. I guess, allowing Muslim man to marry more than one woman is considered a privilege by the Hindu fundamentalists, and that must be the reason why they keep talking of ‘special’ rights given to Muslim men. May be, that is why more Hindu men in India are polygamous than Muslim men.

Show one country where the 85% majority craves for the indulgence of the 15% minority.

Indian Hindus do not crave for indulgence of the Indian Muslims. It is a false notion. It doesn’t reflect in any action that Indian Hindus do. In fact, Muslims are discriminated against by many Hindus. Muslims are underrepresented in education, employment and opportunity. Muslims are ghettoed into special areas by denying them tenancy in Hindu apartments.

Show one Muslim country, which has a Non-Muslim as its President or Prime Minister.

Senegal is predominantly a Muslim country with nearly 90% Muslims had a Christian President for nearly 20 years. [Included this after a friend cited this]. In most countries, elected leaders are usually from the majority religion. India has not yet elected a Muslim Prime Minister. United States and United Kingdom did not elect non-Christian President and Prime Minister, though both United States and United Kingdom are secular countries. Most Muslims countries, like most Christian countries, have Presidents and Prime Ministers of majority religion.

Most countries do not have such varied population with so many religions as India. It is a greatness of India that we have had Presidents and Prime Ministers from non-majority religions. Instead of feeling proud of such uniqueness, why should we start negatively talk about Muslim countries – because even most Christians countries follow the same pattern.

Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has declared a 'fatwa' against terrorists.

This statement is based in laziness. One search on the internet provided me with these on the first 10 results on Google. [Search words: indian muslims fatwa against terrorism]

Basically this allegation is made only to feed into the stereotypes that Muslims do not condemn violence, that they are violent people, and that they do not come out into the open to denounce the violence. Hindu fundamentalists do not wish to read the statements made by Indian Muslims denouncing the violence and continue stick to their prejudices against Muslims.

Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry, etc. have in the past elected Muslims as CM’s. Can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of Muslim - majority J&K?

Kerala had one Muslim CM, for less than 2 months, and he was forced to resign after that. Most other Muslims CMs were appointed by the Congress central leadership. And their tenure was not very long. The opposition was too strong against them. Bihar had one Muslim CM from Congress, for 15 months. Maharashtra had one Muslim CM from Congress, for 18 months.

First, we have to understand that appointment of CMs by the center does not really reflect the will of the people, but more the will of Congress leadership at the center. Also, the reasons why J&K never had a Hindu CM is more to do with the Kashmir problem which has been haunting India since Independence, and less to do with the will of the people of that state.

In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%. Today it is not even 1%. In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30%. Today it is about 7%. What happened to the missing Hindus? Do Hindus have human rights?

The ‘missing Hindus’ problem is often cited, as if something happened to those Hindus. They question is always asked, ‘what happened to them? How did they disappear?’ - the way a kid would ask of disappearing bunny from the magicians hat. In fact, the reality is very simple. Most Hindus from these countries migrated into India over a period of time, preferring to live in India rather than in Pakistan or Bangladesh. In fact, many Muslims also migrated into India during Bangladesh crisis so we can talk of ‘missing Muslims’ too.

In contrast, in India, Muslim population has gone up from 10.4% in 1951 to about 14% today; whereas Hindu population has come down from 87.2% in 1951 to 85% in 1991. Do you still think that Hindus are fundamentalists?

The question ‘Do you think Hindus are fundamentalists’ has nothing to do with the growth of a certain population. The question is posed to mean: ‘If Hindus were fundamentalists, would they have allowed Muslims to make more babies?’ That’s a stupid question. Hindus could be fundamentalists, and yet, population of Muslims could keep growing. ‘Being discriminated against’ and ‘making more babies’ are not related.

Also, this data feeds into stereotyping of Muslims that they make more babies than Hindus. Clearly, compared to Hindus as one group, Muslims growth was higher. Both the Hindu and Muslim population has gone up, but at different rates. While Hindus as a group grew by 20.3% in the last 10 years, Muslims as a group grew by 29.5% clearly showing a faster growth for Muslims. But is this growth a clear function of the religion, as Hindu fundamentalists would like to us to believe, or is it a function of socio-economic status of that group?

Clearly, the religious group of Sikhs is considered a forward socio-economic group, and their population grew only by 18.2%. Now, let’s take a look at the population growth of SCs, a backward socio-economic group between 1981 and 1991. While the whole country grew by 23.8%, SC population grew by 31.0%. That’s because of lower literacy and higher poverty in this population group. This high growth is more a result of backwardness of that group, not because of their religion. The same holds for Muslims in India.

Sachar Report and Ranganath Mishra Report clearly indicate that the poverty level and literacy level of that religion is one of the primary reasons.

In India today Hindus are 85%. If Hindus are intolerant, how come Masjids and madrasas are thriving?

How come Muslims are offering Namaz on the road? How come Muslims are proclaiming 5 times a day on loud speakers that there is no God except Allah?

Masjids and Madrasas thrive even if Hindus were intolerant. Even in dictatorships and theocracies, places of worship of targeted religions continue to thrive. Even when Europe was being intolerant towards Jews during Middles Ages, synagogues were thriving. The fact that Masjids and madrasas are thriving is no indication that Hindus are not intolerant. Such a conclusion is baseless.

When Hindus gave to Muslims 30% of Bharat for a song, why should Hindus now beg for their sacred places at Ayodhya, Mathura And Kashi?

It’s arrogance of Hindus that they think that this subcontinent belongs only to them, and that Pakistan was formed on the land given to Muslims by Hindus. Such arrogance needs to be combated. Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Jains have home in this sub-continent. So, Hindus did not ‘give’ Muslims the land for Pakistan, but the Muslims of that land made a nation out of their home.

Hindus are not begging Muslims for their sacred places. Instead, they are fighting this nation and it’s Constitution which was founded on secular principles. They are asking this nation to give preferential treatment to Hindus, so that this nation can bend its secular laws, and give Hindus certain favors. What happened during the time of Babur cannot be equated or challenged in the modern secular nation of India.

Why Gandhiji objected to the decision of the cabinet and insisted that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public fund, not government funds. When in January 1948 he pressurized Nehru and Patel to carry on renovation of the Mosques of Delhi at government expenses?

Myth. Nothing to substantiate this.

Why Gandhi supported Khilafat Movement (nothing to do with our freedom movement) and what in turn he got?

Gandhi supported Khilafat Movement to bring Muslims of India into the cause of Independence Movement. Before Gandhi did this, Muslims were alienated from the Indian National Congress and the Indian Independence Movement. No Hindu leader tried to include them in the fight against British. With the support to Khilafat Movement, Gandhi performed a major achievement of bringing millions of Muslims into the fold of Independence Movement. Why should this action be criticized? In fact, it should be celebrated.

Muslims and Christians are minorities in India, NOT in a particular state or district. If we start going to by each start, one can go by each district, and we will get different results, and then we can go by each constituency, and we will get different results.

And the most important thing to understand is that there are no ‘minority rights’ given to anyone. There are certain privileges given to minority groups, but then there are privileges given to backward socio-economic groups like SC/ST also. In the state of Andhra Pradesh, women get 33% reservation in education – those are not special rights, but privileges. One should not equate privileges to rights.

A good question. The only relevant question in the whole presentation. We ‘secularists’ oppose Haj subsidy.

When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, Why Hindus cannot teach Gita or Ramayan in our schools?

Hindus already teach Gita and Ramayan in Hindu schools.

Do you admit that Hindus do have problems that need to be recognized? Or do you think that those who call themselves Hindus are themselves The problem?

Hindus do not have any problems other than the problem of arrogance that the majority is right.

This is not prepared by/for any political party/group. These are the observations the thoughts of a Citizen Of India

This citizen of India does not know its constitution nor does he understand what India stands for. Such citizens of India are the reason why India continues to have communalism in this country, why there is lawlessness, corruption in this country, why rules are broken, why certain people are targeted and discriminated in this country. Such citizens need to know more about India before they start propagating such nonsense to impressionable young minds.

57 comments:

Sujai:But it is also true that no country in the world gives government funds for construction and renovation of private Hindu temples.Karnataka Government in India has donated crores of money to Hindu temples.Most of the famous temples are under government endowment.You want the revenue generated from them, but you don't want to spend on them in turn?Can you give me few examples where masjid or madarsas are adding to a state revenue?.

state sponsored celebration of Hindu and Muslim festivalsSo, we should ban public holidays on days of festivals, right?

An Indian Muslim woman is treated far more inferiorly than an Indian Hindu womanI completely disagree with this one.You should have atleast explained it with an example.

Most Hindus from these countries migrated into India over a period of time, preferring to live in India rather than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.Or might have forced to take up some other religion.

Muslims and Christians are minorities in India.According article 15 of Indian constitution secularism is defined as :The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of themIf a state doesn't identify people on the basis of religion and every one is equal, then there is no question of being majority or minority.Which means no Hindu is a majority and no Muslim is a minority, they all belong to one race i.e human beings.

Hindus already teach Gita and Ramayan in Hindu schools.They are taught for their moral values, not to spread religion.

I read in my 10th Social textbook that India is a Secular socialist Republic.India ceased being Socialist or a Secular State long time ago and now our corporations are working hard to destroy the notion of "republic".

India instead should be called a Hindu Facist Plutocracy.

There are countries with muslim populations that are Secular.

Take Turkey may be 90% muslim population but it is fiercely Secular , Muslim equivalents of Vigilantee relegious groups like RSS and VHP are banned in Turkey.Sadly our country couldnt do the same.

Muslim majority countries like Indonesia had presidents like Sukharno who are not muslim.

I believe they Could stop funding Haj pilgrimage the Day they Stop granting special train and bus services to tirupathi.

Sometimes Secularism and Democracy are not compatible, take Switzerland that has very high Democracy( Direct democracy where common citizens can propose laws and vote on anything) but they did anti-secular things like banning minarets.

Take Syria or Egypt Dictatorships, where minorities like orthodox christisans and Druze enjoy equal rights, only because they have an authoritative Secular Dictator.

We can make a choice but if we give a free reign to Hindu or Muslim Political parties like BJP or MIM we should stop calling ourselves a Secular country.

TV9 is acting like a Propaganda machine of Settlers same as Sakshi works for Jagan. First there was some piece about Warangal becoming capital of Telengana which was repeated daily for a week and now its About Maoists making a comeback in Telengana.Even the newspaper Hindu's Regional Bureau is completely run By Andhras and is having some kind of anti-T agenda. Someone must its about time throw rocks at TV9's office.

There is an allout Cyber war going one between pakis and Indians, and looks like pakis are winning, they are hacking atleast 2,3 indian sites per day and I think on Dec6 there will be a massive DDOS attack.Our Banking system will collapse like in Estonia if the pakis are successful. Hope govt wakes up and forms a Cyber warfare division like in China.

@AdityaEasy excuse when you cant fight straight within the context and subject of the matter.

The question of fight arises when it is fought between equals and not against an intellectually bankrupt personality like you.

@I agree its totally unrelated , i just put it there to provoke some new debate, i dont need to divert topic i can tackle hundred shit heads like u in a debate.

Your inability to keep decency in your conversations speaks volume about state of your mind. I don't think there is any merit in indulging with you and hoping for an outcome. Take rest and get well soon.

The overall tenor of the article is OK. But you seem to have glossed over some issues.

1. Your reply to temple under endowments is unconvincing. Many of these temples invite devotees in lakhs, such that managing the temple has obvious law and order fall outs. You seem to suggest that the state should abdicate its responsibility of maintaining law and order if it is in a religious premises.

Secondly you have bypassed the question that in case of temple, the state takes revenue from the temple and then spends it. In case of mosques, state does not take revenue from it but spends on it. I do not see why it should not be called preferential treatment.

2. Your argument that most of the Hindus fled from Pakistan and Bangladesh, thus reducing the Hindu population there, is on a weak foundation. The real question is why did similar demographic change not occur in the Muslim populations of India? Why didn't Muslims flee from India like Hindus did from Pakistan?

3. You have not addressed the "privilege to minority" question properly. Let us put it this way. Do any Muslim countries allow construction of Hindu temples on their land? I have seen Hindu temple operating under a makeshift tent even in ultra advanced Dubai. I asked my friend there and he told that even this makeshift tent was illegal but authorities don't mind. However making a pucca structure for a temple was a strict no-no. In many of these countries a non-Muslim is not even allowed a cremation on their land. Calling Muslim countries as equal opportunity providers to non Muslims is ridiculous.

The only thing you can argue is that in practice we also discriminate our minorities. While in Muslim countries, the discrimination is in law, in practice, and a notch higher in severity.

But it is also true that no country in the world gives government funds for construction and renovation of private Hindu temples.Karnataka Government in India has donated crores of money to Hindu temples.Now, from what i know is our state of Andhera (Andhra) pradesh govt. takes money from TTD temple in hundreds of crores every year, and the govt. has the gall to say that the temple owes them money, as if the govt gave them loans.India is a secular country, because the majority are Hindu's, what ever the faults of the religion. They are plenty, at least it is trying to be modern, change and be more open. Ofcourse there is opposition from the orthodox, but i feel eventually it will happen in time.

It is rather foolish to say India is a secular country. India neither de-racognizes religion nor it gives same treatment.This secularism is only for politicians to expliot vote banks. And of course neo-liberals ride on hypocracy.

Show one Muslim country, which has a Non-Muslim as its President or Prime Minister.Senegal is around 90% Muslim. It had a Christian President - Léopold Senghor - for about twenty years. He won four or five democratically conducted elections.

Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?Well, in Pakistan the right of a Muslim man to take a second wife has been restricted by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 - he needs the consent of his first wife. Hindus in Pakistan, in contrast, are governed by Hindu personal law, and have what is in effect an absolute right to marry as many times as they like. So in terms of family law, Hindus in Pakistan are in much the same position - and have much the same 'special rights' as Muslims do in India.

karnataka govt is just not giving away money to temples. These temples undertake many social activities like dasoha (free food for pilgrims), educational activities and other social concerns. Also it is giving money to temples of archeological importance for maintenance. I dont think even the govt can function as efficiently as some of these temples like siddanganga, dharmastala and so on. This has been the heritage of karnataka which we are proud of.

Also regarding teaching ramayana and bhagavadgita is not for religious propaganda but for the moral lessons and their importance even in today's life.

Celebration of festivals is a step towards national integration and a way of preserving our culture and heritage.

how are the hindus responsible if muslims and christains are less in numbers? no one has asked them not to study well and work hard. Reservation for minorities is a state of decelartion of country's progress.

Though we do not follow all the pre requisites of absolute secularism,I would still say we are relatively secular in almost all aspects of law.Like you pointed out,India does not recognize or de-recognize religion officially.But,with a large percent of our population being Hindu,we do end up giving/getting incentives in the form of more holidays, bonuses,loans etc.

It's the government and the people that need to be secular in thought and action.This is why I call it mob theory.We elect the government based on the sops they provide us and not on the ability to do the job well.And,they in turn dance to the tunes of vote bank politics.

It is a vicious circle.....

I have not lost hope that we will learn to respect others before expecting it ourselves.Tolerance and Patience....

@@@Arjun<<<ow, from what i know is our state of Andhera (Andhra) pradesh govt. takes money from TTD temple in hundreds of crores every year, and the govt. has the gall to say that the temple owes them money, as if the govt gave them loans.

If you think that Donations given by people are Gods own Income then government has every right to the Income tax of the God.TTD every year wastes hundreds of Crores on Mismanagement and Sheer Corruption.Govt should totally take over control of Tirupathi and Spend the funds on Education, Healthacare or Renovation of Old Temples .

Afterall its Peoples own money and Unforunately God cant actually take the Money so it should be spent on People rather than fattening up Some corrupt Contractors and Priests of TTD.

@Arjun, "karnataka govt is just not giving away money to temples. These temples undertake many social activities like dasoha (free food for pilgrims), educational activities and other social concerns."

The money that the government spends,MUST or CAN be used to support or start its own social concerns.And there are plenty of them.It is in no way supposed to spend the tax money on free will.

The government can spend the same money for educational,employment and other development programs where all sections of society can benefit from it.

Why Hinduise(if there is a term like that)INDIAN money.

Isn't it saying"If you are hungry,change your religion".

"Also regarding teaching ramayana and bhagavadgita is not for religious propaganda but for the moral lessons and their importance even in today's life."

Buddhism is one of the simplest and most ethical religions in the world,why doesn't the government propagate it,instead.

@Shravan & Vishal,

"Yeah.Temples even promote tourism.So, I feel theres nothing wrong if some amount is spent on their maintenance."

Tourism need not be developed at the cost of religious tolerance in the country.In fact it leads to feelings of prejudice amongst its citizens,leading to communal unrest.There are several beautiful places which are in total state of neglect.The government can concentrate on them instead.

"Whenever huge amounts of money is involved, government will intervene."

We have seen that where large amounts of money is involved,corruption has demented rather than encourage development activities.

TTD is a perfect example.Earlier it could had been a good example of pilgrim tourism for the entire country,instead,today all it's channels literally inform how people are being duped or cheated there.

The state involving itself in the matters of religion must be seen as a constitutional crime not religious.

It is not foolish to say that India is a ‘socialist’ country, or a ‘democratic’ country, or a ‘republic’. They are all the expectations set in Indian Constitution, and therefore people use those as a premise to make an argument as to why India should be socialist, democratic, or republic. In the same way, people say, we should be secular or that we are secular.

1. Your reply to temple under endowments is unconvincing. Many of these temples invite devotees in lakhs, such that managing the temple has obvious law and order fall outs. You seem to suggest that the state should abdicate its responsibility of maintaining law and order if it is in a religious premises.

We are not talking of law and order. We are talking of giving funds to the temples. When you give funds to temples, as is done in Karnataka, without giving similar funds to mosques, it is clearly seen as a ‘promotion of one religion’. So why this preferential treatment?

This example was posed as a counter-argument to the original premise where certain Hindus objected to the state giving Haj subsidy. If you want to argue further on this. Please include the original premise in the context.

The real question is why did similar demographic change not occur in the Muslim populations of India? Why didn't Muslims flee from India like Hindus did from Pakistan?

That’s because of people like us (some Hindus) who have ensured this country remained secular fighting against people like you (some Hindus) who would have wanted to make this country a Hindu state. Unfortunately for Pakistan, there were more people like you in there than people like us.

We do not want this country to become Pakistan, and therefore continue to fight people like you.

[I used 'you' because it sounded simpler. If you are not a supporter of Hindu State, then it is not applicable to you in particular but to other Hindus who want a Hindu State.]

Do any Muslim countries allow construction of Hindu temples on their land?

Lavanya:Tourism need not be developed at the cost of religious tolerance in the countryTemples are also a sign of our heritage.Most of the foreigners who come to India visit antique temples,Palaces etc.And I think it's our duty to protect them.We have seen that where large amounts of money is involved,corruption has demented rather than encourage development activities.That's the problem with government not temples.Sujai:Unfortunately for Pakistan, there were more people like you in there than people like us. Put in another way this statement means there are more secularists in India than Pakistan.Then why do parties like BJP still exist?

So, you agree that Hindus of India have a larger share of liberals among them than Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere? I do not have any issues with this conclusion. However, in your post you seem to suggest otherwise.

So, you agree that Hindus of India have a larger share of liberals among them than Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere?

I do believe that there are more liberals in India than in Pakistan. [This observation comes from the events that took place in both countries since Partition.]

Many of these liberals in India are coming from Hindu religion. This doesn't mean there are no liberals coming from other religious groups. Since Hindus form the majority in India, the majority of the liberals are Hindus.

@@Chirkut<<<So, you agree that Hindus of India have a larger share of liberals among them than Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Pakistan has a very vibrant media that is willing to openly Criticize its govt unlike the Indian media. That has a very narrow view point and always toes the official line.Pakistan also has a Middle Class which may not be even 5% of population, but it has more liberal views than that of the Indian middle class.

@Aditya: "Pakistan has a very vibrant media that is willing to openly Criticize its govt unlike the Indian media. That has a very narrow view point and always toes the official line.Pakistan also has a Middle Class which may not be even 5% of population, but it has more liberal views than that of the Indian middle class."

"more vibrant", "narrow view point", "5% of population", "more liberal views".... Do you have any evidence to support the phrases you are liberally sprinkling here, or do I have to take whatever you say without questioning?

The whole tenor of Sujai's argument is that Indian society is as oppressive to minorities (if not worse) as Muslim countries. I do not think so. And if you see Sujai's reply above even he thinks that Indian society has more liberals like him and you than Pakistani society which has more fanatics like me. Because that is the only way you can explain why Hindus migrated from Pakistan in greater proportion than Muslims from India.

Now Pakistan is a poor country like India. That's why I gave the example of Dubai. When even rich Muslim countries like Kuwait and UAE do not provide the same rights to their minorities which even a third world country like India provides, then it is obvious that Islamic culture is inherently more intolerant of minorities than others.

To argue for political correctness because it is the only way out for us is one thing, to deliberately muddle facts to suit ones cherished premises is another. I call it intellectual dishonesty.

I am assuming you are the same ‘chirkut’ who has visited my blog previously.

I don’t think you have understood the tenor of my argument. Please read some of the articles that I wrote concerning Pakistan.

The whole tenor of Sujai's argument is that Indian society is as oppressive to minorities (if not worse) as Muslim countries.

To start with, I never compared India with other Muslim countries. My argument is very simple: Just because some Muslim countries tend to treat their minorities worse does not mean we in India take that as an example and treat our minorities the same. The standard I set for India are not based in emulation of some of the Muslim countries you have in mind.

then it is obvious that Islamic culture is inherently more intolerant of minorities than others.

That’s a wrong conclusion which I do not draw. I believe it is to do with socio-political history of these countries rather than the Islamic culture. There have been repressive Christian countries at different times. I write at lengths in the series called ‘Understanding Islam’ on this blog.

For proof you can just read Pakistani Media websites or you can ask some Neutral party to decide which Media is more liberal and critical of its govt. ( Ive heard Noam Chomsky say published in Hindu)

What you said has nothing to do with political correctness but is simply flawed.

You are assuming that Rich countries should be Secular, and you are making poor generalisations like "Muslim countries" or saying that Islam is Intolerant.Islam has many shades from the almost hippie like "free love" concept of Mystical Sufism to the Fundamentalist wahabism.

Women in many Islamic countries enjoy more Freedom than woman in India and Some Islamic countries like Leabanon can be compared to Scandinavian countries when it comes to liberal values.

"My argument is very simple: Just because some Muslim countries tend to treat their minorities worse does not mean we in India take that as an example and treat our minorities the same. The standard I set for India are not based in emulation of some of the Muslim countries you have in mind."

No issues with that. I would like India to compete with US, UK and western European countries - not Islamic countries. However, you have compared minority rights in India with Islamic countries and tried to rationalize them as equal.

"I believe it is to do with socio-political history of these countries rather than the Islamic culture. There have been repressive Christian countries at different times. I write at lengths in the series called ‘Understanding Islam’ on this blog."

I have read your "understanding islam" series and found a lot of it as an attempt for needless justification of the unjustifiable. Yes. At one time Islam used to be among the most liberal religions. Yes. At other times, Christian civilization showed greater repressiveness than Islam. However, I am talking about ground reality today- not in some past. Unlike you, I don't see any reason to avoid confronting the obvious just because it goes against established norms of political correctness.

Deterioration of Islam may be a result of socio-political causes. I don't deny that. However, it does not change the fact that on today's standards, in terms of today's values, Islamic culture is the most inferior one on an evolutionary scale.

<<<You must be living in some different century. If you have time please read Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and let me know what you think.

I dont give much credibility to what Friedman writes ( His economic theories were proved to be false by nobel econ laurate Paul Krugman) Thomas Friedman is a Necon Economist whose economic theories are responsible for US economic disaster along with World banks Paul wolfowitz and WTO's Alan Greenspan they were Gurus for George Bush for his economic policy.

I read his book "The world is Flat" it was full of BS in the book he was so full of praise for Chandra Babu Naidu and his economic policies that it made me Puke.

From what I Gather from this "Century" I know that Lebanon is famous for its Beaches, Nightclubs even among western tourists.

"From what I Gather from this "Century" I know that Lebanon is famous for its Beaches, Nightclubs even among western tourists."

You are free to believe what you want to believe. Only thing is don't take your beliefs too seriously. It is fine as long as you sit here and daydream about vacationing in Lebanon. However be warned that acting on your beliefs and landing there as a tourist may not turn out to be what you believe it is going to be.

BTW, Friedman is a political journalist, not an economist. If you were hoping to get economic wisdom from a political journalist, you have only yourself to blame.

When somebody frames a question beginning with, Show one Muslim country, it goes without saying that India is a hindu country.

We should not compare India with a Muslim country because, India is a secular country as defined by its own constitution. You can't just compare apples and oranges and make a valid question.

Most of the famous temples are under government endowment. Whenever huge amounts of money is involved, government will intervene.

before 1947, there were hundreds of small kingdoms in pace of the unified India. All these kingdoms built n number of temples taking taxes from common people. After independence, all the social properties were acquired by state and along with that, temples built using common people's tax money were also taken by state. So naturally, income from the temples should also go to the state.

Somewhere I have read govt is giving financial assistance for amarnath pilgrimage. I am not sure about that...somebody needs to check that out.

Economist Edward Herman has noted that Friedman makes denigrating remarks about Arabs and the Arab world:[Thomas Friedman is]...regularly denigrating Arabs for their qualities of emotionalism, unreason, and hostility to democracy and modernization. His classic remark, in the same interview in which he lauds the proxy terrorism model, was that we mustn't go too far in forcing Palestinian concessions because, "I believe that as soon as Ahmed has a seat in the bus, he will limit his demands." As always, the implicit assumption is that the problem is excessive Palestinian demands, not any unreasonable actions or demands by the Israelis. But the racist language is telling. A remark about "Hymie" made Jesse Jackson a moral outcast for the NYT and media establishment; but Friedman's "Ahmed" remark is not reported or criticized in the mainstream, which reflects the normalization of anti-Arab racism in the United States.[37]Some of Friedman's environmental critics question Friedman's support of still undeveloped "clean coal" technology and coal mining as emblematic of Friedman's less than "green" commitment to renewable energy.[38] While Friedman supports the elimination of coal based power, he believes improving coal technology is necessary in the short term.[39]Noam Chomsky has accused Friedman of bias, citing that the columnist and his employer, The New York Times, refused to publish the unproven rumor regarding Arafat's alleged offer to enter into negotiations with the Israeli leadership in December 1986. Chomsky writes in his Necessary Illusions and Pirates and Emperors that Friedman knew about the rumor, but instead wrote that Israel couldn't find a negotiating partner. In his article, Chomsky, however, does not address the fact that the allegations of Arafat's apparent "offer" were not supported by any credible facts.[37]Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have both accused Friedman of supporting and cheerleading American and Israeli actions, while berating others for "excusing" Islamist and Arab terrorism. They point to Friedman's article in the New York Times, when Friedman praises the bombing of Gaza civilians by arguing it "educates" the Gazans. Chomsky responds that "by similar logic, bin Laden's effort to 'educate' Americans on 9/11 was highly praiseworthy, as were the Nazi attacks on Lidice and Oradour, Putin's destruction of Grozny, and other notable educational exercises".[40]Israeli politician and peace activist Uri Avnery has questioned Friedman's argument that the best role for the Obama administration on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to refuse to intervene politically, forcing the two sides to resolve the issues internally.Friedman does not propose ending (US financial and military) support (to Israel), which itself is a massive intervention in this conflict, and is given to the stronger side. When he suggests that the US withdraw from the conflict, he is actually saying: let the Israeli government do what it is doing – continue the o

Economist Edward Herman has noted that Friedman makes denigrating remarks about Arabs and the Arab world:[Thomas Friedman is]...regularly denigrating Arabs for their qualities of emotionalism, unreason, and hostility to democracy and modernization. His classic remark, in the same interview in which he lauds the proxy terrorism model, was that we mustn't go too far in forcing Palestinian concessions because, "I believe that as soon as Ahmed has a seat in the bus, he will limit his demands." The New York Times, refused to publish the unproven rumor regarding Arafat's alleged offer to enter into negotiations with the Israeli leadership in December 1986. Chomsky writes in his Necessary Illusions and Pirates and Emperors that Friedman knew about the rumor, but instead wrote that Israel couldn't find a negotiating partner. In his article, Chomsky, however, does not address the fact that the allegations of Arafat's apparent "offer" were not supported by any credible facts.[37]Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have both accused Friedman of supporting and cheerleading American and Israeli actions, while berating others for "excusing" Islamist and Arab terrorism. They point to Friedman's article in the New York Times, when Friedman praises the bombing of Gaza civilians by arguing it "educates" the Gazans. Chomsky responds that "by similar logic, bin Laden's effort to 'educate' Americans on 9/11 was highly praiseworthy, as were the Nazi attacks on Lidice and Oradour, Putin's destruction of Grozny, and other notable educational exercises".[40]

What are we turning ourselves into? We are least interested to be Indians and least interested in progress and unity of our nation. We promote regionalism at the expense of national interest; we always need some disturbance and do not mind following leaders like Mr KCR and his kin. Our students have no values and do not mind becoming the looters and thugs who destroy public property. Our leaders in Assembly including CM are willing to write off all the criminal cases against goons and criminals.How would any nation progress when all the looters would turn our future leaders? Anyone who opposes KCR becomes an Andhraite and unfortunately we elected him as our MP of my district Mahbubnagar. Has he done anything so far as state and central minister, several-time MP etc for Telangana? My fellow Telanganaites, wake up.

I don't know what secularist means. But currently India can hardly be called secular in any sense. In my opinion (and I may be wrong), to be secular:

- The government should be religion-blind (Be it Hindu, Muslim, Scientology, FSM church whatever).

- The government has no business running any religious institutions temples, mosques, churches etc.

- Laws should apply uniformly to all its citizens irrespective of their religion. Its ridiculous that we have separate marriage laws based on the religion of the person! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_family_law) What if I am a scientologist?

- I don't care what other countries do, or what Pakistan or turkey does or who became CM where. I don't care about which Mullah declaring any Fatwa. All these are just unrelated distractions in the argument.

It is a waste of time debating this from a Hindu angle or a Muslim angle. Mostly propaganda.

Just my two cents. Will be happy to be corrected and learn a few things.

Haj subsidy: many devout Muslims also oppose the subsidy. Muslims are expected to settle their matters (like debt) before proceeding on haj. Further haj is obligatory only to those who can afford it.

HUF: Many countries including India regulate personal law by religion. However India is the only modern democracy that treats tax matters by religion. No one has raised their voice against the special status to HUF's.

Sujai, I understand your desparation as a hindu-baiter and your need for dissociating with things India needs to do to chart out a better future for our children. Just keep voting for your Italian Catholic masters supporting vote-bank politics. Wish you all the best for elections 2014, Idiot.

Dear Commenters:Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.